Premium
Effects of grasslands and conifer reforestations on centipedes (Chilopoda): barriers, semi‐permeable matrices or secondary habitats?
Author(s) -
Lacasella Federica,
Zapparoli Marzio
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
insect conservation and diversity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1752-4598
pISSN - 1752-458X
DOI - 10.1111/icad.12133
Subject(s) - ecotone , reforestation , epigeal , grassland , biodiversity , ecology , habitat , habitat fragmentation , fragmentation (computing) , geography , agroforestry , biology
Ecotones are frequently associated with habitat fragmentation, one of the main causes of biodiversity loss. Conifer reforestations are assumed to enhance connectivity between forest remnants, buffering negative effects of fragmentation (edge effect). Conversion of agricultural lands into conifer plantations is commonly considered a good practice, although its implications on biodiversity are still unclear. We compare effects of two matrices (non‐native conifer reforestations and semi‐natural grasslands) on epigeic centipedes of native forests in central Italy. Assemblages were sampled at progressive distances from the edge, both in the matrix and the native forest. Basing on habitat‐matrix similarity, reforestations should show lower edge effects compared to grasslands. Consequently reforestations could act as secondary habitat, while grasslands as barrier or semipermeable matrix. Several species occurred in both native forest and matrix: 47% of species at the forest–reforestation ecotone, 16% at the forest–grassland ecotone. Both reforestation and grasslands affected forest indicators ( Lithobius castaneus and L. tylopus ). L. castaneus showed reforestations had a lower magnitude (0.95) and a greater depth of edge effect (53 m into the forest). Conversely, grasslands had a higher magnitude (1.00) and a lower depth of edge effect (17 m). Our findings show reforestations can act as secondary habitat, while grasslands as semipermeable matrix. Secondly, grasslands mainly threat forest species by isolation, while conifer reforestations by edge‐effect penetration. In conclusion, the establishment of non‐native conifer reforestation, although enhances connectivity, is not risk free and further comparative studies are due to evaluate positive and negative effects on biodiversity.